God and Politics

The old adage that polite conversation should avoid politics and religion to maintain friendly relationships has never proven to be truer than during this election season. Rather than civil discourse about the issues of the day and better approaches to addressing them, the election has become a mudslinging contest over which candidate has the most baggage and would be most disastrous in office.

Worse yet, anybody who speaks on behalf of, or against, one of the candidates is branded a bigot, a misogynist, a hog at the public trough, un-American, a fool, atheistic, even satanic by guilt through association. Friends and relatives easily get caught up in the fray and even religious communities, Unificationism included, have become deeply divided.

As tempting as it is to base a decision on who has the better character in this election, no candidate rises to the level of a Washington, Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt or Reagan. At this crossroads in the American narrative, this crucial moment of decision, it behooves us to look at contemporary issues in a very broad historical context — that is, a providential context, past, present and future. The theme of the ever progressing nature of God’s providence is expressed in Ecclesiastes 3:1-8 (KJV):

To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven…
A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up;…
A time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak;
A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace.

The political pendulum swings back and forth.

Government grew, during the Great Depression and World War II, for example. And it receded, during the 1990s under the Republican Congress. Often, the economy grew together with government expansion. Automobile and airplane manufacturers exploded in the aftermath of the military buildup of the Second World War.

Although government grew after the Depression and during the war, so did private industry.

ARAPNET, a networking system begun in 1969 to allow computers in different locations to communicate with each other, was developed by the military to protect information from enemy attack. It was the forerunner of the Internet. The G.I. Bill (1944) is considered by many economists to be the best investment the nation ever made in the growth of the economy.

Unfettered government leads to excess, however. I supervised a contract for the Army Corps of Engineers to replace the bottom of a 110 foot barge — that didn’t need it. We cut out good steel plate and replaced it with good steel. For the record, I contacted the Corps of Engineers and told them I gauged the bottom and there was nothing wrong with it. They said to cut it out anyway. I found out later that they spent the money they had left in their budget so they’d get it re-appropriated for the following year.

Instances of waste and abuse are rampant. In human services, the field in which I currently work, some agencies keep clients in their caseloads billing hours for services they no longer need. Fiscal conservatives spoke up. The period from the 1980s to 2000 was one of cutting back government programs.

Foreign and defense policies have also shifted according to the times. Tremendous military might was raised to defeat Germany and Japan in World War II. But the Cold War was fought on different terms. Military actions in Korea and Vietnam were not as successful as fighting German and Japanese nationalism.

Our founder explained the fight against communism was an ideological battle that took on the character of a religious battle between atheistic resentment versus truth and reconciliation centered on God. He didn’t deny that the use of force was necessary for defensive purposes, and he was a strong advocate for supporting the military in the U.S. and freedom fighters around the globe. But he also knew that unlike fascism, which is motivated by a culture of arrogant superiority, communism appealed to the oppressed and bred resentment.

Through CAUSA, he reached out to the underclass and to authoritarian leaders in countries where there was no middle class to negotiate reconciliation and avoid violent revolution. He fought a psychological battle with communist leaders undermining their authority by publicizing American technological superiority — this while sympathizing with the oppressed, offering them hope. The Washington Times and ICUS played significant roles at that time as educational and propaganda outlets.

And so that brings us to the questions: What are the new occasions of our time? What are the appropriate policies? What administration (not just the individual) is best suited to perform new duties?

The most pressing international issue of the day is Islamic terrorism. Islamic extremists aim to spread their ideology to create a regional, and eventually, global caliphate — a theocracy led by clerics who interpret and enforce the laws. But these radicals represent a small minority of Muslims, as evidenced by the numbers streaming out of Muslim nations. The majority share a vision that resonates with all faiths.

Some believe the correct response to Islamic extremism and refugee immigration is American nationalism and isolationism.

Is this in sync with the founder’s philosophy? We just celebrated the 40th anniversary of the Washington Monument rally. The founder taught that Godism is universal, that barriers of race, nationality and religion would break down. “America is a model of the ideal world,” he said. When he fought communism through CAUSA, he taught that shared ideals, cooperation and mutual prosperity are correct. But the means, when through violence, are wrong.

Through the Middle East Peace Initiative, we found many allies in that region who share the same values we do, people who reject violence, who live in accordance with the laws of the lands in which they dwell. But, they also envision one world under Allah that will eventually be achieved through peaceful means. So how is that any different than the Unification view that God will restore His sovereignty over the world and man-made boundaries will disappear?

God is a globalist. This was made very clear to us by our founder through his efforts to reform the UN. He envisioned a higher, deliberative body comprised of representatives of the world’s religions who have a global perspective, beyond national boundaries. The agenda he envisioned included building an international highway. That would be the largest construction project ever attempted, and would involve the cooperation of nations requiring sacrifices for the sake of a global purpose.

The founders also have said that we are entering the era of women. This suggests the national and global culture will become more feminine. Maternal concerns lean more toward care and nurturing.

There has been a great deal of criticism toward human services in this country. People receiving benefits have sometimes been characterized as pigs at the public trough. I’m particularly sensitive to that because I work for an agency that provides services to those with disabilities. My wife suffers from Parkinson’s and receives help with her Activities of Daily Living (self-care) and her medications from Medicaid. We also took in a single mother with two kids, one on the autism spectrum, who works a low-paying job 40-60 hours per week.

People with disabilities make up 19% of the population. Sixty-five percent are unemployed, most because they can’t compete in the workforce. I’m a job developer and my role, paid for by the U.S. Department of Labor, is to work with businesses to get people with disabilities jobs and to support them once they are placed.

In addition to people with disabilities, many capable people are between jobs. Government services have evolved over the years. Welfare is now called Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, and the time limit that a family may remain on TANF is five years. Most families receive TANF for a year or less.

The rising costs of education and healthcare are also pressing issues. If the G.I. Bill was one of the best investments in the American economy, would government investment in making education affordable make sense today?

I’m convinced we are in a period of ethical evolution where God is expecting humanity to be more inclusive and embrace people unconditionally.

In the field of human services, there is a “Person First” culture. That means you accept everyone as they are, as an individual person first. Isn’t that the way a parent looks at his or her child? Perhaps it is more characteristic of women to be inclusive, where men historically have been more judgmental. To put it in Divine Principle terms, think of the vertical axis as being more in line with God’s standards and principles, holding people to a standard of how we ought to be. And think off the horizontal axis as being more in tune with humanity, accepting of people as they are.

One difference I’ve observed between men and women is when men greet each other, we tend to ask what the other is doing. We discuss our occupations, our position or jobs. Our achievements play a big role in defining our identities. Of course, our kids and grandkids are also big topics of conversation, but even then it tends to be about achievements. But my wife is more concerned about “what they may be going through.” This expresses concern about their health, emotional well-being and their relationships. The “planet of Venus” tends not to look so much at a person’s ideology, doctrine, ethnic background, or occupation. The tendency is more about health, growth, relationships, and family. Of course these are not absolute or exclusive qualities.

If we accept these general distinctions, while acknowledging they exist to greater or lesser degrees in every person, there are important implications for public policy. This is especially true as women are rising to the same levels of power and influence as men in the political, economic and cultural fields. Sharp distinctions based on ethnicity, religious doctrine, and socio-economic strata may be curbed by cultural shifts toward inclusivity, extended family connections, and collective concern for education, health and welfare. Competition between nations may give way to cooperation and mutual prosperity. Religion may evolve from doctrine-based to the practice of unconditional love.

Doctrine and ideology took center stage during the Cold War. I propose that new occasions teach new duties. Today it’s time to put away doctrinal and national differences. It’s time to be concerned about our families here in America, but to be equally concerned about families abroad. Being successful and self-reliant are important values, but must be weighed against the values of social responsibility and unconditional love.

These considerations, above character assassination, are the things that must be considered as we choose an administration to handle the reins while America struggles to fulfill its destiny.♦

Scott Simonds is an employment specialist with Creative Work Systems, a comprehensive non-profit rehabilitation agency, serving the needs of persons with disabilities. He and his wife, Jaclyn, are part of the 2,074 couple marriage blessing (1982), have three adult children, and live in Maine.

Related

Post navigation

8 thoughts on “God and Politics”

Very thoughtful piece — appreciated. One more wrinkle on this issue is that God always works through relative Abel and Cain. So who are in those relative positions in this election? There are any number of perspectives from which to look — not only the global one. For example:

– Which candidate will nominate Supreme Court justices who will rule for domestic laws closer to God’s ideal?
– Which candidate, if winning, will help more candidates for Congress and Senate be elected who will govern closer to God’s ideal?
– Indeed, which political party, with all its flaws, tends to govern closer to God’s ideal?
– Which candidate can be seen as closer to supporting religious freedom?
– Which candidate/party can be seen as helping America become the leader in the world that True Mother keeps reminding us we must become?

I am not answering these questions here. I struggle with them every day, because I have many problems with both candidates for President. Not just their personalities, but their policies. Hopefully, God will help us all sort this out before election day!

I agree this is a very thoughtful piece, but since we are beyond restoration we can no longer consider the Cain-Abel paradigm to be the way God works anymore. Success or failure for God is no longer predicated upon the success or failure of an Abel figure. We no longer need to fear the failure of Abel to win over Cain setting us back or delaying the providence. I believe this to be also consistent with “entering the age of women.”

With respect to this election it means we are free to vote according to our own individual conscience. Maybe the fact that there is no clear “Abel” in either candidate is precisely the purpose of this election, i.e., to get us beyond Cain-Abel thinking and put the decision who to vote for on our own individual conscience.

Thank you, Scott. This is a wonderfully balanced and well-argued piece. I appreciate that you have taken the path that leads to a higher perspective, thereby allowing people to make up their minds somewhat transcendent of the heated battle that prevails on the ground.

This is remarkably thoughtful and sensitive, taking the “words right out of my mouth,” but doing so much better than I could have done. Yes, yes, hear, hear. Scott, you have characterized our founders’ heart and perspective well, in my book. I too have worked in human services, counseling inmates transitioning back into the community, and I see the injustices of the system as well as the failures of individuals. Glib ideological slogans on both sides do not capture the complex realities. I am grateful to have this beautiful expression of Unificationist political ideals to remind us of Headwing and the parental heart that can lift us above the divisive name-calling and caricaturing of this election season.

Scott, thanks for your remarks. They paint a very large picture of the problems we face and touch on a lot of issues.

From an external point of view, I think the core functional problem the U.S. faces is faction, caused by the two major political parties. They cause divisiveness as they fight over money and power and cause citizens to align with one side or the other. Parties put up patsies that will do their bidding, so the primary funders of the two parties control what gets done. There are thousands of Americans more qualified to lead this country than those political parties will endorse. Since both parties focus on their own interests, the interests of the nation as whole are left untended.

James Madison warned against faction in Federalist 10. It was one of the core problems that caused the founders concern. In speaking of political parties, George Washington, in his Farewell Address, remarked that:

“This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.”

Today our political parties are both an obstacle to the voice of the individual citizens and to the well-being of the nation as a whole. Over 200 years they have gradually entrenched themselves through procedures and rules of Congress, Constitutional amendments, political appointments, and bribery. This is now sensed by most Americans who use the phrases “Washington is broken” and “the system is rigged.”

Many changes can be made that will both return the government to the citizens and raise the consciousness of citizens. One simple recommendation I made recently was to remove party affiliation from ballots. This would cause individuals to either think about their candidates and their government or to cast spurious votes that would cancel each other out, so that only the intelligent votes of citizens would end up counting and people could not simply select a party that represented some selfish interest and vote an entire slate. There are lots of other reforms that could be made — some by restoring laws like the Glass-Steagall Act, or overturning the 17th Amendment.

As Washington said, the jealous and divisive spirit of faction represents selfish human nature in group form. Partyism is divisive like racism, yet citizens tend to be aligning with this spirit increasingly as the spirit of Christian culture wanes. The defacing of Clinton and Trump advertising signs reflects the spirit of faction and the general decline of personal citizenship.

The machinery of government needs to be reformed both to prevent the spirit of faction from having so much power, and to encourage positive social actions that will enable all people to pursue life, liberty, and happiness — giving them an opportunity to achieve the three blessings.

Of concern to me is the impact on the family structure. While we were fighting against communism, our founder noted that the next big challenge would be on moral values –- especially corruption of the younger generations. How often have we heard that “the only institution God created was the family” as expressed in Genesis 1:28?

It was disturbing to our family when our children watched Sesame Street 20+ years ago with the emphasis on “this is a family” being applied to children living with a single parent, with grandparents, with two same-sex adults, and so forth. Certainly this was designed to establish self-esteem for children trapped in “non-traditional” living situations, but rarely was the nuclear family unit with both father and mother shown in the “this is a family” segments. The “it takes a village” concept was equally well-intentioned, but the support of the nuclear family was not the emphasis of that approach. Rather, the “village” authority superseded the two-parent monogamous family unit.

Now on my campus, the emphasis is the “deconstruction” of the “gender-binary fallacy.” My students object to the use of “she” or “he” as personal pronouns in their writings because that only imposes the views of others about the gender identity of the reference. Facebook has 57 different choices for people to use in their gender identification. When I was at the airport in Minneapolis recently, I noticed that the “Family” restroom signs had been updated: “Companion Care Restroom” with a female child’s hands held while standing between two adults, a female and a male. How long before the image gets updated?

Certainly, the attack on the concept of the nuclear family has reached an urgent level, which I consider one of the most important factors as I contemplate filling out my ballot.

Any candidate for public office should be vetted in order to fully understand where they stand on issues of individual freedoms and principled views regarding sexuality, family and gender. When there is utter confusion about these issues it’s no wonder that we face the kind of social malaise that threatens the very fabric of a moral culture.

Just today I saw a report how at Duke University there is a 9-week program being initiated for students to have “a safe space to deconstruct toxic masculinity.” An editorial about the program appeared in the school newspaper, called “Engendering Gender Harmony.” A male supporter of the program commented that the course will “help men proactively deconstruct their masculinity.”

The issue of freedom of choice is central to accomplishing the Three Blessings. It would seem that any candidate that seeks to prohibit freedom via government coercion is by definition “ungodly” according to the tenets of DP.

Thank you for a very thoughtful and thorough analysis. The family unit certainly is at the core of so many issues and problems and the source of hope and change.

A great leader that I worked for gave me and other managers in the company some advice on evaluating potential hires and their own leaders, managers or executives. Maybe this will be helpful to others in this context.

1. Would you be comfortable with the person being the fiduciary of your will and making financial decisions for you?

2. Would you be comfortable with the person making health care decisions for you?

3. Would you look forward to a five-hour cross-country flight with the person in the seat next to you? What do you envision talking about?

4. Does the person listen to you?

Over the last few years, I have been using these four questions to help foster constructive conversation about policies and issues.

1. Are they effective? By this I mean, at what level of government or perhaps private or a public-private partnership would the policy or idea be most effective?

2. Are they efficient? By this I mean, how much overhead, in terms of money and time does the decision-making and management use, compared to the direct use of the funds and or time?

3. Are they ethical? By this I mean, evaluating the benefits accruing to other parties not directly receiving the benefits.

I have found these to be useful in talking to people who have very different viewpoints to mine.

Search the AU Blog

Search

Commenting

To post a comment on any article, at the bottom of a page, click inside the box under where it says “Please leave a comment or reply.” Type your comment, full name, email, and website (if any). Then, click “Post Comment” or “Post a Reply.”

Comments should not be article-length. If you would like to post a longer comment, you are encouraged to submit an article to the AU Blog for consideration (see our guidelines here). We welcome a diversity of points-of-view.

No anonymous comments. Please use your full, real name, not a handle or pseudonym.

Unlike on Facebook or an email list, all comments are moderated, and there is a delay in posting. Please write in a polite tone specifically regarding the article in question; self-promotional comments are discouraged.

Applied Unificationism is a place where the future of the Family Federation for World Peace and Unification (FFWPU) may be thoughtfully discussed, but is not a site for criticism of its leadership.

The AU Blog posts a comment at its sole discretion, may edit for length, content or clarity, and reserves the right to limit the number of comments posted by an individual in a period of time. Ad hominem attacks on the persons or motivations of other writers, commenters, this Blog, or its sponsor are not acceptable.

This site will not tolerate the denigration, direct or indirect, of other faiths, races and cultures. We will also not permit a comment’s bullying or disparaging tone directed toward AU Blog readers.

You may contact an author directly by clicking his/her name in their byline.

Readers may rate comments using a five-star system.

Re-blogging

A brief excerpt of AU Blog content may be quoted as long as a link is provided to the source page and authorship properly attributed. Please use Facebook’s sharing feature rather than post articles in full on Facebook. Posting of a PDF of an AU Blog article on another site must also include full attribution, including the source as “Applied Unificationism” and the article’s posting date.